Dischino, Good question. I can't quite s
Post# of 41413
Posted On: 11/17/2015 1:57:31 PM
Dischino,
Good question. I can't quite speak for the FAA level on these terms, but I certain can for the 1st tier in aircraft manufacture.
Back in 2008, Boeing had found out that the incorrect type of nutplate was being installed on the 737 for the past 15 months. Spirit Aerosystems, the company I used to work for, had been ordering the parts from a supplier because they were approved by Boeing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2131534/posts
The supplier somehow changed it's process to cut corners, because they were competing against another approved supplier. Since that was discovered, Boeing pulled the approved status and sued them, which eventually killed the supplier.
I was learning a lot about this as it was impacting the production at Spirit AeroSystems. What I learned then was that the "approved" status shows that the company is conforming to FAA traceablity system. Meaning that they are meeting with ISO 9002 standards, ANSI Standards and so on.
When I was designing a part for the 787 Dreamliner, I needed some rivets, nutplates and end hose. I couldn't go to a hardware store and buy those things...I was referred to a list of parts that was approved design standard parts by Boeing, because they had done extensive study on a part to ensure it's design would work for it's purpose. I search and choose a part that I want to use, then the purchases guy goes to the approved supplier list to buy parts for the design I created.
It was all tractability.
My guess with the FAA and UTC Aerospace is that the "approved" was taken out is because there was a lot of fault found in it's process. Emergency Evacuation slides are uquine to it's design as no type aircraft are the same. So one can't really easily go to another supplier to get the product because UTC Aerospace only holds the contract to Boeing for the 747.
I would say that the FAA realizes that if they say they are approving a product that has defect higher than the acceptable rate, they could be held responsible for such fault in the court of law. They are wanting to get rid of that burden by passing it on to the airliners. Kinda shady, but hey, big government for you!
Good question. I can't quite speak for the FAA level on these terms, but I certain can for the 1st tier in aircraft manufacture.
Back in 2008, Boeing had found out that the incorrect type of nutplate was being installed on the 737 for the past 15 months. Spirit Aerosystems, the company I used to work for, had been ordering the parts from a supplier because they were approved by Boeing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2131534/posts
The supplier somehow changed it's process to cut corners, because they were competing against another approved supplier. Since that was discovered, Boeing pulled the approved status and sued them, which eventually killed the supplier.
I was learning a lot about this as it was impacting the production at Spirit AeroSystems. What I learned then was that the "approved" status shows that the company is conforming to FAA traceablity system. Meaning that they are meeting with ISO 9002 standards, ANSI Standards and so on.
When I was designing a part for the 787 Dreamliner, I needed some rivets, nutplates and end hose. I couldn't go to a hardware store and buy those things...I was referred to a list of parts that was approved design standard parts by Boeing, because they had done extensive study on a part to ensure it's design would work for it's purpose. I search and choose a part that I want to use, then the purchases guy goes to the approved supplier list to buy parts for the design I created.
It was all tractability.
My guess with the FAA and UTC Aerospace is that the "approved" was taken out is because there was a lot of fault found in it's process. Emergency Evacuation slides are uquine to it's design as no type aircraft are the same. So one can't really easily go to another supplier to get the product because UTC Aerospace only holds the contract to Boeing for the 747.
I would say that the FAA realizes that if they say they are approving a product that has defect higher than the acceptable rate, they could be held responsible for such fault in the court of law. They are wanting to get rid of that burden by passing it on to the airliners. Kinda shady, but hey, big government for you!
(0)
(0)Baltia Air Lines Inc (BLTA) Stock Research Links
Let's make BLTA great again!!!
Scroll down for more posts ▼